The massacre of St. Bartholomew : $b Preceded by a history of the religious wars in the reign of Charles IXWhite, Henry
History
The massacre of St. Bartholomew : $b Preceded by a history of the religious wars in the reign of Charles IX
White, Henry
France -- History -- Wars of the Huguenots, 1562-1598; Saint Bartholomew's Day, Massacre of, France, 1572
Confiscations, imprisonment, and death having failed to purge the
kingdom of heresy, the Cardinal of Lorraine suggested (in 1555) a
new edict, by virtue of which all persons convicted of heresy by the
ecclesiastical judges should be punished according to the magnitude
of the crime without appeal, and proposed the appointment of Ory as
“inquisitor of the faith in France;”[50] but bishops and Parliament
alike protested against it. The magistrates were especially offended
at having a court set over them, before which they were liable to be
tried. President Seguier remonstrated to the Council in language worthy
of the occasion: “We abhor the establishment of a tribunal of blood,
where secret accusation takes the place of proof; where the accused
is deprived of every natural means of defense, and where no judiciary
form is respected. Commence, Sire, by giving the nation an edict which
will not cover your kingdom with burning piles, or be wetted with the
tears and blood of your faithful subjects.” He suggested that instead
of employing fire and sword to establish and extend religion, they
should try the same means that had been employed to found it, namely,
“the revival of pure doctrine, combined with the exemplary lives of the
clergy.” Henry received the advice courteously, and the edict was not
enforced.
It might be supposed that there was little to choose between the
Inquisition and the Chambres Ardentes; but the difference was vital.
From the sentence of the Inquisition, which derived its authority from
the Holy See, there could be no appeal. Its victims were handed over
to the secular arm, and not even the king had power to come between
them and death.[51] But it was a fundamental principle of the French
law that the king alone, as supreme head of the state, had the power
of life and death over the subjects of the state; and that all appeals
should be heard and decided by lay judges.[52] In the next reign we
shall find the great Chancellor L’Hôpital declaring the edict of
Romorantin with all its harshness and restrictions to be more merciful
than any copy of the Spanish tribunals of blood could be.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account